|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Immunity to Cold isn't simply Immunity to Cold Damage unless it states it is against Cold Damage and is not impacted by any effects (or effects generated by Spells/Abilities with said Trait) with that Trait full-stop.
Option #1 is correct. For reference the Immunity rules spell this out.
I don't go full-stop as soon as I see a period. When I continue reading the rest of the Immunity rules, I am seeing this:
If you have immunity to effects with a certain trait (such as death effects, poison, or disease), you are unaffected by effects with that trait. Often, an effect has a trait and deals that type of damage (this is especially true in the case of energy damage types). In these cases, the immunity applies to the effect corresponding to the trait, not just the damage. However, some complex effects might have parts that affect you even if you're immune to one of the effect's traits; for instance, a spell that deals both fire and acid damage can still deal acid damage to you even if you're immune to fire.
A Graveknight is not immune to difficult terrain, hazardous terrain, or slippery terrain.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
some complex effects
This is an odd rule. It is essentially saying, it is up to the GM if the effect is complex.
But I'm not seeing a composite effect here. There is not a second damage type. So I'd argue it is not complex.
If an entity has cold immunity I'd be making them immune to the terrain generated by this spell.
I typically only go to this clause if there are clearly complex split effects like say Moonburst versus a Graveknight. Which you can tell by there being multiple damage types.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But I'm not seeing a composite effect here. There is not a second damage type. So I'd argue it is not complex.
Different damage types is only the example given for complex effects. I would agree that the concept is vague and not very well defined.
But why would the Graveknight's cold immunity prevent the ground from becoming slippery? That is the complex part of the effect. Part of it affects the Graveknight, and part of it affects the terrain.
And like I mentioned, the Graveknight is not immune to terrain effects. They don't have a special and explicit ability to walk across a frozen lake without slipping just because they don't take any damage from the cold.
But I'm not seeing a composite effect here. There is not a second damage type. So I'd argue it is not complex.Different damage types is only the example given for complex effects. I would agree that the concept is vague and not very well defined.
But why would the Graveknight's cold immunity prevent the ground from becoming slippery? That is the complex part of the effect. Part of it affects the Graveknight, and part of it affects the terrain.
And like I mentioned, the Graveknight is not immune to terrain effects. They don't have a special and explicit ability to walk across a frozen lake without slipping just because they don't take any damage from the cold.
Well you are now making a value judgment. I'm fairly happy with immunity to cold also being immmunity to the slippery ice created by cold. Otherwise by simple extension of your logic the default rule the immunity applies to the effect corresponding to the trait, not just the damage would rarely apply.
Well you are now making a value judgment.
It absolutely is a value judgement type of thing. That is what happens when we have vaguely defined terms like 'complex effect'.
Mostly I am speaking out against the 'obviously clear cut full-stop' statement from Themetricsystem. Effect immunity is a lot more difficult to adjudicate than that.
If the effect was 'cold damage and a 5 foot penalty to speeds', I would say that the cold immunity would apply to both effects.
But 'cold damage to creatures and ground becomes slippery' causes me to rule that the cold effect still applies to the terrain and the creature is not immune to slippery terrain.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So here is where the nuance comes in at, and is also where we hoped there was a clear rule on how that interacts with immunity. Does the cold immunity become a blanket immunity that stops all potential effects that were initially created by via a cold trait but that do not actually target the Graveknight specifically; or does the immunity only impact damage and effects directly targeting the Graveknight?
Pretty much. It is still nuanced even for effects that directly target the Graveknight.
Imp Sting and Inkshot are both single target spells with the Poison trait.
Would the Graveknight use its Poison immunity to prevent the piercing damage from Imp Sting? Or the Dazzled effect from Inkshot?
So here is where the nuance comes in at, and is also where we hoped there was a clear rule on how that interacts with immunity. Does the cold immunity become a blanket immunity that stops all potential effects that were initially created by via a cold trait but that do not actually target the Graveknight specifically; or does the immunity only impact damage and effects directly targeting the Graveknight?Pretty much. It is still nuanced even for effects that directly target the Graveknight.
Imp Sting and Inkshot are both single target spells with the Poison trait.
Would the Graveknight use its Poison immunity to prevent the piercing damage from Imp Sting? Or the Dazzled effect from Inkshot?
For me I would say the piercing damage means that it is a complex effect as there are 2 damage types. So I would apply Imp Sting piercing damage only to the Gravenight. But not the dazzled from Inkshot
But if you look on complex effects as secondary or indirect effects then maybe you have more decisions to make and there gets to be a lot more interpretation in the game. For speed of rulings I prefer to stick to the tags at the top of the ability.
For me, I am not seeing an increase in complexity between 'damage type 1 + damage type 2' vs 'damage type 1 + status effect'.
In both cases you have two different things being caused by the overall effect. And in both cases you have to read the text of the spell or ability rather than just looking at the traits at the top.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think I'd use the Frost Drake stat block as an example here.
It has immunity to cold in the immunities section.
But it also has Ice Climb:
"A frost drake can climb on ice as though it had the listed climb Speed. It ignores difficult terrain and greater difficult terrain from ice and snow and doesn't risk falling when crossing ice."
If immunity to "Cold" conferred immunity to difficult terrain from ice and snow, the second part of the ability could've been omitted.
Well you are now making a value judgment.It absolutely is a value judgement type of thing. That is what happens when we have vaguely defined terms like 'complex effect'.
Mostly I am speaking out against the 'obviously clear cut full-stop' statement from Themetricsystem. Effect immunity is a lot more difficult to adjudicate than that.
If the effect was 'cold damage and a 5 foot penalty to speeds', I would say that the cold immunity would apply to both effects.
But 'cold damage to creatures and ground becomes slippery' causes me to rule that the cold effect still applies to the terrain and the creature is not immune to slippery terrain.
This is the point. We want clear cut rules and mechanics, or at least as clear as possible. PF2 has taken a good step down this path, but they have left some holes here and there. We the gamers have to patch them as best we can - as Paizo suggest we should.
To fix this particular hole Paizo should clarify what they mean by complex effects. All we have is this one example. So that is all I use. Any broader interpretation and complex becomes very complex.
This is the point. We want clear cut rules and mechanics, or at least as clear as possible. PF2 has taken a good step down this path, but they have left some holes here and there. We the gamers have to patch them as best we can - as Paizo suggest we should.
To fix this particular hole Paizo should clarify what they mean by complex effects. All we have is this one example. So that is all I use. Any broader interpretation and complex becomes very complex.
While that is a fantastic ideal, we still have a game to play right now. I don't want to give a new GM bad advice because 'it is technically RAW' and end up with their group having a poor experience playing.
You know what else is technically RAW? The Ambiguous Rules rule and the First Rule.
We aren't trying to give advice that computers can follow. We are giving advice to people trying to play a rather complex game and still have fun with it.
Immunity to Cold is to the Trait of Cold. Effects that have the trait of Cold are completely ignored.
If part of the effect has a different damage type, that is explicitly called out by the RAW as not being ignored.
But why only damage? What about effects that have nothing to do with the trait but don't cause damage?
Such as the ink part of Inkshot. The poison damage should have the poison trait, but the dazzled part doesn't depend on being poisonous but on being ink. But since we don't have an 'Ink' trait and it isn't causing damage, it is just going to be ignored because of poison immunity - because...?
|
|
Immunity to Cold is to the Trait of Cold. Effects that have the trait of Cold are completely ignored.
If part of the effect has a different damage type, that is explicitly called out by the RAW as not being ignored.
But why only damage? What about effects that have nothing to do with the trait but don't cause damage?
Such as the ink part of Inkshot. The poison damage should have the poison trait, but the dazzled part doesn't depend on being poisonous but on being ink. But since we don't have an 'Ink' trait and it isn't causing damage, it is just going to be ignored because of poison immunity - because...?
The ink stings and gives you Dazzled because it is Poison.
The ink stings and gives you Dazzled because it is Poison.
Are you saying that because that statement explains why this should be the ruling, or because that is how you would interpret your ruling for this particular spell.
Because spells like Gritty Wheeze, Briny Bolt, Control Sand, Ash Cloud, ... also exist.
|
|
The ink stings and gives you Dazzled because it is Poison.Are you saying that because that statement explains why this should be the ruling, or because that is how you would interpret your ruling for this particular spell.
Because spells like Gritty Wheeze, Briny Bolt, Control Sand, Ash Cloud, ... also exist.
I would rule each on a case by case basis.
I believe the Poison is what gives Dazzled. Not the ink by itself. If you throw ink at an enemy, it will not inflict Dazzled by itself.
Gritty Wheeze : I would say Immunity to Air or Earth protects you from all results (damage and Dazzled).
Briny Bolt : Immunity to Water protects you completely.
Control sand : Immunity to Earth protects you completely.
Ash Cloud : Immunity to Fire protects you completely. Immunity to Air protects you from Dazzled but not from the fire damage because of the RAW about complex effects.
I would rule each on a case by case basis.The ink stings and gives you Dazzled because it is Poison.Are you saying that because that statement explains why this should be the ruling, or because that is how you would interpret your ruling for this particular spell.
Because spells like Gritty Wheeze, Briny Bolt, Control Sand, Ash Cloud, ... also exist.
Really that is all that I am arguing for.
Personally I rule that since Dazzled is an effect that is not associated to one of these damage types (because Poison effects, Earth effects, Air effects, and Fire effects can all cause it) that even though it doesn't cause damage, Dazzled is still a condition that has a different 'type' than Poison, Earth, Air, or Fire. So immunity to Poison or Fire isn't going to make you immune to Dazzled. And an effect that causes both Poison damage and Dazzled is going to be a complex effect and treated the same way that any other complex effects with parts that have a different type will be treated.
But neither of us can really say that we have the one right RAW way of running it and that the other ruling must be a houserule.
|
|
I would rule each on a case by case basis.The ink stings and gives you Dazzled because it is Poison.Are you saying that because that statement explains why this should be the ruling, or because that is how you would interpret your ruling for this particular spell.
Because spells like Gritty Wheeze, Briny Bolt, Control Sand, Ash Cloud, ... also exist.
Really that is all that I am arguing for.
Personally I rule that since Dazzled is an effect that is not associated to one of these damage types (because Poison effects, Earth effects, Air effects, and Fire effects can all cause it) that even though it doesn't cause damage, Dazzled is still a condition that has a different 'type' than Poison, Earth, Air, or Fire. So immunity to Poison or Fire isn't going to make you immune to Dazzled. And an effect that causes both Poison damage and Dazzled is going to be a complex effect and treated the same way that any other complex effects with parts that have a different type will be treated.
But neither of us can really say that we have the one right RAW way of running it and that the other ruling must be a houserule.
I think an important thing is the causality chain.
The spells you mentioned have different traits but all can cause Dazzled.
So, the effect with the trait is the cause and Dazzled is the consequence.
Someone immune to Dazzled would thus be immune to the consequence (Dazzled) for all of those spells.
I think someone immune to one of the spells themselves because of Trait immunity (like being Immune to water effects and the Briny Bolt spell) will also be immune to the consequence (Dazzled).